The Anglosphere is the only thing that keeps the world from descending into barbarism

[Kagemusha]

The Battle of Waterloo - the struggle to secure a seat on the train in the Kent-London commute.

But you got your arses handed to you in 100 year´s war and that is the real pain in the arse for the Englishmen. But in a sense French showed you that you should be masters of the waves. :)

[Greyblades]

But you got your arses handed to you in 100 year´s war and that is the real pain in the arse for the Englishmen. But in a sense French showed you that you should be masters of the waves. :)

Pain in the arse and feather in the cap, by all rights england shouldnt have been capable of matching the french juggernaut yet it was only the bad fortune of henry V dying too soon that cost us the war.

[Fragony]

There is a lot to say for it (@ thesis)

[Pannonian]

Pain in the arse and feather in the cap, by all rights england shouldnt have been capable of matching the french juggernaut yet it was only the bad fortune of henry V dying too soon that cost us the war.

Henry V, unlike English cricketers, got runs.

[Brenus]

"henry V dying too soon that cost us the war." NOt a debate we can have here, as no one in France is convinced the treaty would have been respected. For the same reason that STARTED the 100 years war. What lost England the war was Castillon (and the ones before).

"Your whole language is based around speaking Latin whilst stinking drunk. Yeah, OK, you saved us from the Muslim Hordes way back when and Charlemagne re-introduced silver coinage, but what have you done since?" Apart Rousseau, Voltaire, Universal Human Rights and metric system? Well we helped you in getting USA out of your way, and showing you how to run successful strikes...
And we did our share in invading ooops, civilizing the rest of the world, thank you...

[Greyblades]

Castillion happened several decades after Henry died.

Ultimately the treaty doesnt matter beyond giving the English kings a higher degree of legitimacy to thier claim, if the French lords refuted it there would have been another war and by his previous record I do believe that Henry V could have won that war too.

I believe that if henry had lived long enough to actually get the crown and bring up his kid properly his dynasty would have had a proper chance of cementing thier rule over france.

[Brenus]

"Castillion happened several decades after Henry died." Yeap, but was the last of a series of defeats.

"Ultimately the treaty doesnt matter beyond giving the English kings a higher degree of legitimacy to thier claim, if the French lords refuted it there would have been another war and by his previous record I do believe that Henry V could have won that war too." Agree and disagree. If you believed in Medieval way of dealing with Monarchy by blood line, The English Kings were right, as the son of the daughter of the French king should have been the King of France, if her uncle didn't forge document and made a false "salic" law forbidding the throne to be handed by and to women. Henry HAD a son from Catherine de Valois, and none of the French recognised him as heir of the thrown, as the treaty was signed by the mentally deranged king, to put it kindly...
However your claim about Henry winning the war, nope. Henry was still using the same tactic which ultimately was the down-fall of the English long-bow tactic. Bedford was not a bad leader and succeeded to keep and even to conquered more French towns and territory (Verneuil & Cravant). But in 1429 (14 years after Azincourt) the English faced defeat again at Orlean, followed by the battle of Patey 18 June 1729, battle the English choose or prefer to ignore (less than 5 French killed for more than 2000 English), battle showing the weak point of the long bow tactic.
Then the new French King went for modernisation of the French Army (cutting from the Medieval one) when the English stuck with the war they almost won tactic, which lead them to the ultimate defeat.

[Greyblades]

However your claim about Henry winning the war, nope. Henry was still using the same tactic which ultimately was the down-fall of the English long-bow tactic. Bedford was not a bad leader and succeeded to keep and even to conquered more French towns and territory (Verneuil & Cravant). But in 1429 (14 years after Azincourt) the English faced defeat again at Orlean, followed by the battle of Patey 18 June 1729, battle the English choose or prefer to ignore (less than 5 French killed for more than 2000 English), battle showing the weak point of the long bow tactic.
Then the new French King went for modernisation of the French Army (cutting from the Medieval one) when the English stuck with the war they almost won tactic, which lead them to the ultimate defeat.

I do not believe that would have been a factor:
Charles the Mad died the same year Henry V did, in 1422, if Henry had lived and attempted to take the throne the war would have resumed that year and I do believe that a strong England under the Leadership of an able king like Hal could have won it before the reforms that rendered the Longbow tactic ineffective could have been implemented.

Now I could believe that there's a large chance a later rebellion could have ripped apart what Hal built, but with a united kingdom of England and France and the proper upbringing that Henry VI was deprived of there would have been a chance of house plantagenet retaining france for a good long while.

But of course we have no way of determining what would happen with such large divergeants in history.